The Question of Immortality:

Vampires, Count Dracula, and Vlad the Impaler

Elizabeth Miller

[Elizabeth Miller has published and lectured widely. She is currently working on a volume on
Dracula for the Dictionary of Literary Biography. This essay was a paper given at the TSD
Symposium in Romania in 2002]

What constitutes immortality? There are essentially two definitions: first, endless life, the
condition of living forever, of never dying; and secondly, fame that is likely to last forever.
When applied to the three entities that are the subject of this paper the vampire, the Count
Dracula of Bram Stokers novel, and the historical personage whose nickname Dracula Stoker
borrowed both definitions raise problematic issues.
Immortality is often cited as one of the chief characteristics of the vampire. Indeed, today it
can account to a great extent for the tremendous appeal of the vampire in western popular culture,
not only fulfilling (albeit in a fictional universe) the human yearning for eternal life, but filling a
void created by skepticism about and even abandonment of traditional religious faith.
Furthermore, for many, the lure of the vampire lies in the ideal of eternal youth. But these
paradigms are more of a modern (or even post-modern) construct than an essential part of either
folklore or traditional vampire literature.
In his Motif Index of Folk Literature, Stith Thompson defines a vampire as a corpse which
comes from the grave at night and sucks blood in order to sustain its existence (2:424). It has its
origins in the folk legends of many countries, most specifically in central and eastern Europe.
Most folklorists agree that the word vampire has Slavic roots, first appearing as a proper name
(Upir) in a Russian manuscript of the eleventh century and as a generic term in a Serbian
manuscript two hundred years later. The form vampir has been found in a fifteenth-century
South Slavic source. Vampire-like creatures (by other names) have been identified in the myth
and lore of many other cultures.
What is significant in Thompsons definition for our purposes is that a vampire is a corpse;
that is, it is already dead. Immortality, in the sense of our earlier definition as a state of endless
life or never dying hardly applies. Another common element found in much of the folklore is
that a person becomes a vampire after death as a result of some condition or set of circumstances
present during his lifetime. Some are predisposed at birth: those born on certain holy days, or on
the new moon; those born with a defect such as a caul, an extra nipple, or teeth; anyone who is
the seventh son of a seventh son. Others are doomed to return as vampires because of
transgressions committed against acceptable codes of behavior during their lifetime, such as
practising sorcery or engaging in acts of violence. Still others return from the dead because of the
circumstances surrounding their death or burial: they died without baptism, they died in a state of
excommunication, they committed suicide, they were in life attacked by another vampire, or their
bodies were not buried in accordance with proper rituals. But in each case, the vampire is clearly
dead.
 Furthermore, vampire lore frequently indicates that the vampire can be destroyed that its
existence can be brought to an end by outside intervention. The most widespread was to drive a
wooden stake through its heart; other techniques included decapitation, drenching the body in
garlic or holy water, extracting and burning the heart, or burning the entire corpse. Paradoxically,
then, immortality for the vampire is a temporary state dependent on its ability to procure an
adequate blood supply and its deftness in avoiding the instruments of destruction.
The folkloric vampire entered Western literature as a result of the convergence of two factors:
the famous vampire sightings of the eighteenth century, and the rise of Gothic literature. In
neither of these is the trait of immortality a prominent feature.
The word vampyre made its first appearance in the English language in the early 1730s.
The occasion was a rash of vampire sightings documented in several parts of central and eastern
Europe and eventually reported in the British press. These were so widespread that in some
countries government officials became directly involved. So did the academic community. In
1746, French Biblical scholar Dom Augustin Calmet wrote a treatise on the subject, including his
account of the famous case of Arnald Paul. These reports coincided with (and maybe contributed
to) a rising interest in Gothic literature, first in Germany and later (during the last decades of the
eighteenth century) in England. The Gothic movement was part of the broader period of
Romanticism, with its challenge to rationalism and its shift of philosophical emphasis to
subjectivity, emotion, intuition and imagination. It was inevitable that the vampire would be
adopted by Gothic writers. The first in English literature to do so were the Romantic poets,
notably Robert Southey and Lord Byron. Southey included a vampire in Thalaba the Destroyer
(1799), while Byrons narrative poem The Giaour (1813) contains this famous vampire curse:

But first on earth, as Vampire sent,

Thy corpse shall from its tomb be rent;
Then ghastly haunt thy native place,
And suck the blood of all thy race;
There from thy daughter, sister, wife,
At midnight drain the stream of life;
Yet loathe the banquet, which perforce
Must feed thy livid, living corpse,
Thy victims, ere they yet expire,
Shall know the demon for their sire;
As cursing thee, thou cursing them,
Thy flowers are withered on the stem.

Again, the emphasis is on the folkloric traits: the corpse and its need for blood. Even though the
image of the vampire became more romanticized and eroticized during the nineteenth century
with literary works such as The Vampyre by John Polidori, Varney the Vampyre by James
Malcolm Rymer and Carmilla by Le Fanu, the issue of immortality is never a central one.
This brings us to Bram Stokers novel Dracula (1897) which became the template for all
future representations of the vampire, whether through conformity or deviation. Stoker coins the
term un-dead as a synonym for his concept of the vampire. The word appears several times
throughout the novel, on each occasion used either by Van Helsing or in reference to what he has
said. Stoker was obviously very fond of the word, and had even considered it as the title of the
novel. Even though he had found the name Dracula as early as 1890 and had been using it in
notes and outlines, not until very late in the process did he select it as the title. The title appearing
on the California typescript is THE UN-DEAD By Bram Stoker with Copyright 1897.
Furthermore, the dramatic reading, undertaken on 18 May 1897, prior to publication of the novel,
was entitled Dracula; or, the Un-Dead.
The term un-dead is used by Stoker to express the existence of the vampire in a sort of no-
mans land dead, but yet not dead. Unlike the ghost, the vampire appears in an animated body,
a body which performs at least some of the functions of the living. But how immortal is this un-
dead? In outlining the powers and limitations of the vampire, Abraham Van Helsing states,
When they become such, there come with the change the curse of immortality; they cannot die
but must go on age after age adding new victims and multiplying the evils of the world (308).
This, of course, is nonsense. What we are seeing here is yet another example of the numerous
inconsistencies that plague Stokers novel (and which, in fact, add to its complexities). The
vampire can indeed die -- as Van Helsing demonstrated clearly himself in the staking of Lucy and
later in the pursuit of Dracula. Later, the Dutch professor amends his original declaration,
pointing out that The vampire live on, and cannot die by mere passing of the time (335). Thats
better.
What of this curse of immortality? It is rooted in the concept that for Stoker, the vampire is
a foul thing for all eternity (311), evil incarnate. The Counts powers (including his potential for
immortality) were bestowed on him by Satan himself. There are several occurrences throughout
the novel of a distinction between the un-dead and the true dead. The former is a state of
damnation, while the latter reflects eternal rest with God. This brings us to the nub of the issue of
immortality in Stokers novel, a concept that can be only understood with reference to the
essentially Christian framework of the text. Given the frequency of biblical and Christian
allusions throughout the text, one can read the entire novel as a reaffirmation of Christian faith.
Thus the curse of immortality mentioned by Van Helsing is rooted in the concept that the
vampire is, to use another of the professors phrases a foul thing whose powers are bestowed by
Satan himself. Such immortality is ill-gained, in contrast with the immortality offered through
faith in Christ. Through the redemptive power of faith and prayer, the vampire Lucy will be
restored to true death and subsequent immortality: But the most blessed of all, says Van
Helsing, when this now Un-dead be made to rest as true dead, then the soul of the poor lady
whom we love shall again be free [and] she shall take her place with the other angels (309).
Or after her staking, No longer she is the devils Un-Dead. She is Gods true dead, whose soul is
with him (311). Mina, whose Christian charity exceeds that of all the others, even suggests this
possibility for Dracula himself: Just think what will be his joy when he too is destroyed in his
worser part that his better part may have spiritual immortality (423).
What of the second definition of immortality provided at the outset: fame that is likely to
live forever? Nobody can deny that Stokers Dracula (and through him, the vampire itself) has
achieved that status. Though a fictional character, Count Draculas name evokes instant and
universal recognition, arguably second to none in the Western world. The image of the Count is
ubiquitous: from late-night horror movies to the stages of some of the worlds most prestigious
ballet companies. As for the novel itself, it continues to be reissued in new editions, makes
frequent appearances on the curricula of university courses, and offers challenges to researchers
and scholars around the world. There appears to be no end in sight.
Now we move to a historical figure and find an even greater complexity. The incessant
linking of Vlad the Impaler with Stokers vampire Count that has beleaguered Dracula studies for
the past thirty years has made it virtually impossible to separate fact from fiction. This takes two
forms: the associating of Vlad with vampires and vampire legends, and the false assumption that
Bram Stoker deliberately modeled his Count Dracula on Vlad. I propose to focus on the former
the vampirization of Vlad. As for the latter. I refer you to my book Dracula: Sense & Nonsense,
in which I systematically challenge much current thinking about the relationship between
Stokers Dracula and Vlad.
In 1996, a television documentary ironically entitled Vampires: Thirst for the Truth,
produced in the United States for The Learning Channel, included this preposterous statement,
casually tossed out as fact: that Stoker discovered the name of a real person connected to
vampire legend, Prince Dracula of Transylvania, better known as Vlad the Impaler. We might
laugh, were it not for the lamentable reality that such a view is widespread. Consider the
following statements, all published within the last 10 years: that Almost all literary, television
and movie vampires are modelled after one historical figure ... Vlad the Impaler (Hillyer 78);
that Stoker was the first to have had the genius or courage to write about Dracula as a
vampire (Beecher Smith 27); that the people of Wallachia fear[ed] that the vampire Dracula
would come back (Daly 23); that When questioned about current beliefs, peasants living in the
region around Castle Dracula [Poenari] revealed that there is no longer a connection between
Vlad Tepes and the vampire in their folklore (McNally & Florescu, Search 1994, 123; emphasis
mine); The picture which Eastern European people had of the vampire was based to a great
extent on ... Vlad Dracula.... Much closer come the many stories that circulated after the death of
Vlad. People began to see him as the great leader of the vampires (Brederoo 272-73); Dracula
was based on vampire legends that probably arose from hundreds of savage murders committed
in the 1400s by Vlad Tepes (World Book Encyclopedia 1998, 5:317). Little wonder so many
people are convinced. (I might add that building a vampire theme park near the birthplace of Vlad
will serve to perpetuate such nonsense.)
As early as 1973, Florescu and McNally in Dracula: A Biography of Vlad the Impaler,
provided this explanation as to why the myth presumably developed: Vampire symbolism
became attached to Dracula essentially because his real life lent itself to being mythologized in
that way. Draculas thirst for blood was well known, as was his fixation on impalement (162).
And later, The evil that existed within his family also contributes to the myth [of the vampire].
The discovery of his brother, Mircea, turned head downward in his tomb, rather than upward,
once again helped perpetrate the vampire lore in Draculas family (172). The nasty rumors
started to spread. In 1985, Leatherdale expands on the tacit associations: [Vlads] chosen
method of execution impalement happened to be the same as that recommended for vampires;
Tepes was eventually decapitated in the manner of accused vampires; and his alleged resting
place in Snagov was itself opened up and pillaged suggestive that he had risen up. Stoker may
even have learned of the legend that Tepes never really died, but was waiting to rise up and
protect his homeland if threatened: he was, in other words, lying in wait undead (98). Dozens
have since jumped on the bandwagon, with ludicrous results: for example, the preposterous claim
that Vlads vampirism originated with the Orthodox Church which, because of his conversion to
Catholicism, cursed him to wander the earth forever as a vampire (Hillyer 78).
But even if Vlad were not a vampire, we are told, surely his bloodthirstiness was what
inspired Stoker to use his nickname Dracula for his vampire Count? The assumption here is
that Stoker knew of Vlads atrocities. There is not the slightest bit of evidence to prove such
knowledge, either in Stokers sources, his Notes or the novel itself. Not deterred, some have taken
the position that while Vlad was of course not a vampire, the term technically applies, because he
was a blood-drinker. Such creative mythmaking was in evidence as early as 1971, when Donald
Glut made the sensational statement that Dracula was a real person who drank human blood
(True Vampires 39; emphasis his). He was apparently hoodwinked by an interview (from which
he quotes) that had appeared in the March 1968 issue of Fate, in which a certain Count Alexander
Cepesi, who claimed to be a descendant of Vlad, stated that his infamous ancestor collected the
blood of his victims and drank it either straight or blended with alcohol and brewed with herbs
of his liking (qtd in Glut, Dracula Book 10). As if that were not enough, this Count went on to
state that after his death Vlad was seen riding through the mountains of Transylvania showing
his sharp white teeth and demanding human blood (10). To his credit, however, Glut soon
became skeptical; in 1972 he wisely labelled the Counts comments of questionable
authenticity (Dracula Book 9).
But it has not stopped there. Even more widespread is the belief that Vlads blood-drinking is
actually cited in one of the fifteenth-century accounts, the poem by German meister-singer
Michel Beheim entitled Story of a Bloodthirsty Madman called Dracula of Wallachia. In their
revised (1994) edition of In Search of Dracula, McNally and Florescu reassert that the original
manuscript of Beheims poem (located at the University of Heidelberg) proved that the historical
Dracula dipped his bread in the blood of his victims, which technically justified Stokers use of
the word vampire (x). McNally later expanded on this to include consumption of the blood-
dipped bread: When he used to dine amid his impaled victims, he had their blood gathered in
bowls on his table, and then he would take bread, dip it in the blood and slurp it down (qtd in
Ramsland 132). This has been repeated both in print and on television documentaries. But is this
accurate? The relevant stanza in Beheim reads as follows:

It was his pleasure and gave him courage

To see human blood flow
And it was his custom
To wash his hands in it
As it was brought to the dinner table.

So much for Vlads credentials as a vampire.

He has a much greater claim to immortality when one applies the second definition: fame
that is likely to last forever. First there is his fame within Romania. Long before the suggestion
was ever made that Vlad was Stokers inspiration and source, the voivode was being
immortalized within the borders of his own country. In the nineteenth century, a number of
writers, swept up in the fervor of a revolutionary movement that culminated in the formation of a
Romanian state in 1859, looked back to Vlad as a symbol of independence and nationhood. For
example, in Ion Budai-Deleanus epic poem Tiganiada (published in 1875), Vlad is presented as
one of Romanias first great national heroes, fighting against the Turks, the boyars, and the
legions of evil. Poet Dimitrie Bolintineanu, in his Battles of the Romanians, also praised
Draculas military exploits. And the famous late nineteenth-century poet Mihai Eminescu, in his
historical ballad The Third Letter (1881), called on the Impaler to come once again and save his
country.
Interest in Vlad among Romanian historians and fiction writers continued throughout the
twentieth century. But it was the 1970s that saw the most significant output. A number of
historical articles and books about Vlad appeared, especially in 1976, when the country
commemorated the 500th anniversary of his death. Perhaps the most significant is Nicolae
Stoicescus Vlad Tepes (1976), in which the author takes great pains to separate Vlad not only
from the Dracula legend of the decadent West, but from the highly propagandistic accounts in the
fifteenth-century German texts. The government also undertook many practical projects to re-
enforce Vlads reputation as a national hero: statues were erected, streets were renamed,
restoration of his Poenari castle was undertaken, and a commemorative postage stamp was issued
in 1976 to mark the 500th anniversary of his death. In 1978, a feature movie entitled Vlad Tepes
was produced which, according to Stoicescu, portrays the true personality of a great prince.
Today, Vlad is still remembered. In the village of Aref, near the fortress at Poenari, the locals
depict him as a hero and friend to the people.
But very little of this accounts for the world-wide immortality that Vlad has acquired. This,
ironically, is the result of the very misconceptions I have been outlining. For were it not for the
attention drawn to Vlad around the world because of these questionable connections with Stokers
Dracula, most people outside of Romania would pay little attention to him. And while we
rightfully challenge some of the findings of Florescu and McNally, it is their work which brought
Vlad to international prominence, allowing him to join the Count who shares his nickname
among the ranks of the immortals.

Works Cited:

Brederoo, N.J. Dracula in Film. In Exhibited by Candlelight: Sources and Developments in the Gothic Tradition.
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1995.
Daly, Teri. The Medieval Vampire. Tournaments Illuminated 20 (Autumn 1996): 20-23.
Florescu, Radu and Raymond McNally. Dracula: A Biography of Vlad the Impaler. 1973. London: Hale, 1974.
Glut, Donald F. The Dracula Book. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1975.
Glut, Donald F. True Vampires of History. New York: HC Publishers, 1971.
Hillyer, Vincent. The Enigma of the Count of St Germain. In Leslie Shepard & Albert Power, eds. Dracula:
Celebrating 100 Years. Dublin: Mentor Press, 1997. 78-83.
Leatherdale, Clive. Dracula: The Novel & the Legend. 1985. Westcliff-on-Sea: Desert Island Books. 1993.
McNally, Raymond & Radu Florescu. In Search of Dracula. Greenwich, CT: Graphic Society, 1972.
Miller, Elizabeth. Dracula: Sense & Nonsense. Westcliff-on-Sea: Desert Island Books, 2000.
Ramsland, Katherine. Piercing the Darkness: Undercover with Vampires in America Today. New York: HarperPrism,
1998.
Stoker, Bram. Dracula. 1897. Reprinted as Dracula Unearthed, ed. Clive Leatherdale. Westcliff-on-Sea: Desert Island
Books, 1998.
Thompson, Stith. Motif Index of Folk Literature. 2 vols. Bloomington, IN: Indiana U Press.